Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

 

Schieffer: First Amendment Rights Gone Too Far?

I've spent most of my life defending the First Amendment. But when the Supreme Court ruled last week that it gave a church group the right to picket a dead soldier's funeral with signs that said, "God Hates You" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," I was appalled.

The group believes our soldiers are dying because God is punishing America for tolerating gay people. That anyone would have the audacity to claim knowledge of God's reasoning is ridiculous, but here's what I don't understand.

The courts have long held that free speech can be limited in rare circumstances. We can't yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire, because it would endanger public safety - people might be trampled in the chaos.

The First Amendment has done just fine with that limit.

But if that is so, why isn't public safety endangered when a mob hurls brutal abuse at an innocent citizen who could be scarred with severe and lasting emotional damage?

We must obey the law, because we are a nation of laws. But whatever the laws, what these military families have endured is not right, and every community must now move quickly to establish buffer zones (which are legal) to keep these protesters as far as possible from military funerals.

When there are those among us so selfish and cruel they are willing to use one of our most cherished freedoms to intrude on the grief of parents who have lost a child just to promote their cause, we must do everything legally possible to deter them.

The court has ruled, but the effort to protect these families must go on.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sc...rights-gone-too-far/

Please sir, may I have another.

Last edited by budsfarm

For those interested in what the Supreme Court actually said in its ruling on this issue, here is the concluding paragraph. Note that only one justice dissented and that both Scalia and Thomas  joined in the majority opinion.

"Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. It did not disrupt Mathew Snyder’s funeral, and its choice to picket at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case. Pp. 14–15. 580 F. 3d 206, affirmed. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion."

Not also the guarded language, specifically "in this case." Under more intrusive circumstances, would the Court rule against such noxious activities as those of the Westboro fanatics? Time will tell, perhaps.

Once more, the Westboro Baptists are most likely a tax scam.  There are about 48 members of whom about half are lawyers.  Reportedly, the donate most of their earnings to the church.  Then, when they have the outrageous demonstrations, file expense reports with the church for the trip.  Too bad the IRS hasn't visited them yet.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×